The future of Cohesion Policy scenarios for Mediterranean Regions - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

The future of Cohesion Policy – scenarios for Mediterranean Regions

Nick Brookes CPMR Director for Regional Policy IMC General Assembly 07.07.2017

Plan of presentation

• Analysis on the future of Cohesion Policy for post-

2020 from the point of view of Mediterranean regions

• Views and positions from the CPMR
• Actions for the future

The future of Cohesion Policy (I)

Analysis based on EU finances reflection paper and recent contacts with DG REGIO

The ‘certainties’:

• There will be a - smaller - Cohesion Policy after 2020
• Cohesion Policy will exist in a ‘supporting’ role (esp. for

the European Semester)

• Appetite for significant reform:

differentiation, simplification, co-financing rates…

• The European Fund for Strategic Investment (EFSI) is here

to stay, better complementarity with Cohesion Policy

• Reinforcement of some territorial instruments (S3, ITIs)

The future of Cohesion Policy (II)

The ‘unknowns’:

• Will the policy cover all regions?
• Allocation of funds and based on which criteria?
• 5 European Structural and Investment (ESI) funds or a

single investment fund?

• Which investment areas and priorities? Perhaps more on:

– migration: integration measures, solidarity mechanism – appetite for more focus on social issues – territorial cooperation: support for stronger ETC, proposal to integrate cross border programmes within transnational programmes – more focus on urban

Views and positions from CPMR (I)

Comparison with adopted CPMR policy position on future of Cohesion Policy (22 June 2017)

We support:

• Recognition of the limits of financial instruments vs

grants (e.g CPMR study)

• Recognition of complementarity between EFSI and

Cohesion Policy

• Recognition of the need for more positive incentives vs

sanctions (e.g macroeconomic conditionality)

• Some ideas on simplification (designation

authorities, single set of rules for ESI funds…)

Views and positions from CPMR (II)

We oppose:

• the absence of a strategic vision for Cohesion Policy

supporting a Europe 2030 strategy

• the absence of mention of territorial dimension of

Cohesion Policy (and specific territories such as islands)

• the lack of recognition of role played by regions
• the absence of plans for state aids reform to ease

Cohesion Policy implementation

• the lack of a guarantee that Cohesion Policy will cover all

5 ESI funds (and in particular the European Social Fund)

Views and positions from CPMR (III)

We are unsure about:

• the idea of ‘Structural Reforms Contract’ (e.g better

cofinancing rate if Member State implements country specific recommendations)

• a single category of regions for Cohesion Policy
• a ‘results-based’ payment approach
• more concentration of priorities
• alignment between territorial cooperation programmes

and macroregional / sea basin strategies

• the external EFSI (EIP) being fit for purpose (involvement
• f regions, adequate instrument for development policy)

Next steps

By the end of 2017/early 2018:

• Lobbying initiatives to secure strong Cohesion Policy for

post-2020, ‘sell’ CPMR key proposals to ‘non-believers’

• Develop technical scenarios for post-2020 EU Budget and

Cohesion Policy for the CPMR October 2017 AGM:

– Single category of regions – New indicators for Cohesion Policy allocation methodology – Single investment fund – Timing of post-2020 MFF publication and agreement Leading on the Commission proposals for post-2020 EU Budget and Cohesion Policy in 2018/2019!

Many thanks for your attention!

Nick Brookes CPMR Director nick.brookes@crpm.org

www.cpmr.org